[소유권보존등기말소등][공1991.11.1.(907),2535]
The case recognizing the presumption power in the registration of transfer of ownership which was made before the destruction of the register where the register is not restored after its destruction.
The above real estate is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff if the defendants, who are the property heir of the title holder, filed a lawsuit against the State for confirmation of ownership of the above real estate and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendants, and the above registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendants is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, and the above registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendants is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff, unless there is any assertion that the above registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendants is in conformity with its substantive relations, and there is no proof that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendants is invalid unless there is any evidence.
Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 79 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Defendant 1 and five Defendants (Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na628 delivered on May 23, 1991
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 together.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, since the land of this case was assessed against the deceased non-party 1 under the former Land Investigation Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912), and the former sale was completed on October 5, 1947, after purchasing it from the non-party 3, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 3, the owner of the previous land, and completing the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 194 of the same year. The above non-party 1 died on December 31, 1927 and died on August 8, 1965 and his wife died, and thus, the defendants were entitled to inheritance. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above presumption that the above land was invalid under the name of the owner of the above land and the registration under the name of the above non-party 4, which is the owner of the above real estate, and thus, it did not err in the judgment of the court below for 1981.
The Supreme Court Decision (Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1773 delivered on June 10, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4178 delivered on February 27, 1990) held by a party member in the lawsuit is different from this case, and it is not appropriate to refer the case to this. All the arguments are groundless.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)